[Proposal]Open Loot Compromise In A PvP System

Then go play one of the 300 other non-loot/pvp games?

 

Yep. Well, not exactly fine with having something that took that long be destroyed, but I would find it's destruction far more acceptable than having it looted or stolen.

 

Such as the one RG is making where we are guaranteed to be able to choose who we will play with, and where all PvP was promised to be consensual?

Edit: player looting is not guaranteed yet. The devs originally didn't intend for player looting to be in the game, though it seems like they are looking at it again to see if they can find a place for it. The way it was described, I would expect player looting to be restricted to only a few PvP modes, or else to players that explicitly opt in to looting.

 

@silentstrider hope you don't end up getting looted or stolen from during a quest that involves pvp.

 

If the quest puts me at risk of being stolen or looted I will simply not do it.

I'm not against full loot existing, BTW. I'm just against it being forced on everyone. If, like some expect, SotA ends up with a (optional) guild war PvP mode where full loot is allowed, that's perfectly fine with me. Just never expect to see me there.

 

Ok, good to hear, what are these specific consequences you're referring to, exactly, in SotA?
In particular, what are the consequences that specifically address the economic concerns I've outlined?

 

Which is why you are required to flag for open PvP. If you don't want any risk, don't flag for open PvP. I truly hope this idea does not come to pass.

 

Open PvP is supposed to be fraught with peril.

This presumes that PKs never get killed, and thus are guaranteed pure profit. I don't think that is a realistic prediction.

Everything on a player has a role in supporting that player in PvP, be it weapons, armor, potions, reagents, bandages, food, gold, even loot, which can be sold for gold. What would a player be carrying that would not directly or indirectly support that character in PvP, either tactically or monitarily?

There is nothing glib about it. Anything I take from a fallen enemy no longer supports that enemy, but instead now supports me. I don't see anything wrong with that proposition. After all, I've just killed the fellow. Should I suddenly feel badly about taking his stuff? That seems to be an odd proposition.

SotA open PvP will certainly be more strategic/tactical with full loot than it would be without.

 

The only reason that may be true is if looting an opponent is the only way to strategically/tactically remove them from meaningful player conflict.
If another, new, innovative mechanic is used instead, then full loot has only one purpose, to turn players into loot pinatas (resource taps/sources).

Also, your first response to what you quoted from my post is out of context. The "it" is the economic issue, not Open PvP.

 

OK. All we need now is a new innovative mechanic to come save us, instead of using the practical logical reasonable mechanic we now have in full loot.

My first response was not out of context. You don't just fight opponents physically. A big part of full loot is logistical. If you can deny your enemy supplies and interdict resources, you are well on the way to defeating them.

"Clearly, logistics is the hard part of fighting a war."
- Lt. Gen. E. T. Cook, USMC, November 1990

"Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."
- Gen. George S. Patton, USA

"Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible."
- ADM Hyman Rickover, USN

"Forget logistics, you lose."
- Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/logistics-quotes-t511.html

The best argument in favor of full loot is that many people argue so passionately against it. The reason they oppose it so strongly is because they know how important it is to being able to fight. The reason full loot should be in the game is exactly BECAUSE it is so important to a players ability to fight. It is simple, and effective.

 

To address your economic concerns, I will say that they are probably games that do not focus on the role you are playing. In another post, I’m talking with a few people about helping a PK’er, who in the middle ages would basically be a murderer, play his role better. you can read that post here:https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/where-will-you-not-pvp.3178/

I brought up a few thoughts on solutions. A murderer would get a bounty on his head(now other players can play the role of bounty hunter), PK'ers are a “free” kill for other players(no consequences), deadly rangers that wonder the forests would now attack the murderer, going near a town would cause the guards to attack him. Things of this nature.

The end result(as happened with me in UO) are that players that don’t kill others. I RPed a lumberjack in UO, found out after being attacked by a PK’er I was extremely deadly with the axe(I could get them to about 5-10% health in one hit) and took it a little too far. I then became a PK’er. PK’ers in that game cant go into towns, can get attacked by non-PK’er, its really limiting. So I began doing “virtuous” things to turn back into a normal player(I think I had to kill undead or something?).

Those things combined with giving benefits for having access to town resources(town auction/market/deeds/w-ever) really becomes a deterrent on its own. I heard they are debating making you only able to create on character which would also eliminate the inconvenient method PK’ers use of using a non-PK character to get things in town and take out to a hidden area of the map, drop, and pick up with the PKer.

EDIT: holy cow... I wrote a lot more than I expected! Guess I'm kind of passionate about this. If only I could apply that passion to curing cancer or something.

 

It's ridiculous to me that even with the possibility of a slider, there are still people arguing against full loot and pvp...

There's a new demon in town, guys. Perma death. Go check that thread out!

 

The slider and how it will be implemented hasnt been decided. Last thought I heard from one of the developers is that the world will be PvP. But there will be "safe" paths you can take to complete the story line. However the safe path is not the most rewarding. But... on the perma death note...

I would love that... Would certaintly solve a lot of these concerns! People aren't going to risk perma death trying to kill someone just to loot them. You could have PvP and open loot, and the game would be relativly safe do to PK'ers not wanting to take the risk. Of course there is the obvious other edge to that sword.

 

With two accounts, a single character limit per account doesn't prevent this. So any social, convenience, or other similar in-game penalties don't apply. The murderer can murder as much as they wish, and in fact, being labeled as such is a badge of honor for many.

Unless the penalties prevent the murderer from playing the game, none of those penalties will stop them, if they're determined. Now, it's true pvp in SotA will be consensual, but that still doesn't solve the economic issue of players being loot pinatas compared to non players.

When it comes down to encouraging behavior that is best for the longevity of the title, with respect to customer concurrency, there are better options, imho.

 

Why are you creating a private chat for this AND chatting in here? I'll copy and past what I said in PM

"True... but that is true for any other positions. Even optional PvP that some people like is easily abusable by logging on with a punching bag account and skilling up your primary. This was true for WoW.

I dont recall your position on the matter, but your message sounds like anti-PvP. But the point is, people can find excuses to not do something all day long, but I perfer to find reason to do it."

I dont think they said PvP will be "consensual". Im fairly sure they used the term optional. My ideal is that consensual PvP in "freind only mode" and open PvP in "everyone mode". I outline it here: https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/levels-of-pvp-level-of-involvement.3187/

 

I hate full loot PvP (loaded statement - read on before replying), not because I won't be playing in such an environment willingly, but because the term is misleading. In regards to the slider, I've seen too many posts about having a full loot PvP option mistaken as requests for a completely full loot PvP game. Similarly, I've seen requests for a PvE friendly slider option interpreted as a request for no PvP whatsoever. The worst part is the arguments (not necessarily in this thread) that are spurred by this misunderstanding. In reality, there are only a few people who want to either stop all PvP or force it indefinitely.

Also, if PvP is an option, then it is consensual (although I do understand what you mean. I may still get ganked in a PvP slider unwillingly. Its only consensual in that I chose to be in that slider, not to be in that specific fight).

 

The thing about this slider business is it's basically going to be time spent creating something that isn't story driven and is basically just a bunch of players having at it.


Might as well just make areas in the game that are isolated/way out there. You're warned upon going in "Warning, this hex is a free for all. It has nothing to do with anything. You will probably get clubbed to the ground and robbed of everything. Do you wish to proceed?"

 

The problem with that though is that areas would be made "PvPers only." On one hand, PvEers RPers, and Deeply Respected Fellow Players, are going to have to open themselves up to griefing to access some of the content. On the other hand, PvPers are going to be restricted to PvPing only in certain areas, upsetting them, and exacerbating the problem for non-PvPers who want to access that content.

 

What i still do not understand is, why do we need special areas if we have selective multiplayer giving you the power to decide who you want to meet and who not.

If you do not want pvp you exclude them from your selective player list and done? Or am i undestanding it wrong.

They propose that you do not have to deal with players you are not interested in or do not fit to your playing style.

Selective multiplayer and additionaly restricted areas. Is that not to much?

 

It will be that we have pvp going on on the same map at the same time with people that are having nice chat in a group. Both groups not even knowing or seeing each other. That is the power of this new system with all data on our computers updated again and again. Not one main server